roads with many names

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: roads with many names

Johnparis
Don't know how you deduced "no space?" from Martin's comment. A space is an alphanumeric character. In any case, as I mentioned, there is normally a local consensus on space-versus-no space, and as others have mentioned, it's up to you.

The problem with space-vs-no space arises particularly with refs, which are searchable. If you include the space for refs of national routes in Morocco, someone will remove it; if you omit it in Algeria, someone will add it. There are some advantages to consistency within a given area, and the tagging consensus will be documented (hopefully) on the wiki or the local mailing list (as is the case for the national routes I cited). "Paint the label" is fine in general but there can be other considerations (signs, as you know, aren't always correct).

Tag *names*, by contrast, use an underscore instead of a space. Kevin Kenny's comment above indicates what appears to be the consensus on the tag name(s) in the USA. So in theory you might have ref:US:NFSR:Raggeds_Wilderness:NFH=FS 826. That seems to me to be a bit much to swallow ...

You can see the tagging on the Court Street example he cites here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45759030

Here's a Colorado national forest highway with a nearby CR: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17062214#map=14/38.8684/-107.1015

The tags look reasonable to me:

highway=unclassified
name=Lake Irwin Road 826
ref=FS-826
source=Gunnison County GIS data, USFS, Bing
surface=gravel
tracktype=grade1

... except that, again, you might want to use a space instead of a hyphen in the "ref" tag in this case, and normally you'd use semicolons (not commas) as a separator in the "source" tag.






On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:28 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 19/08/19 05:16, Paul Allen wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 19:55, Rob Savoye <[hidden email]> wrote:
  So no space ? USFS roads use "FS " with a space, at least that seems
to be common. So should those be "FS739.1A' ?

My opinion is "paint the label."  Others disagree.  Make up your own mind which
is better.

+1.

The mapper is in charge of what goes into OSM. They should map what they see, not conform to some 'rule' of 'no spaces' etc etc. Map the truth.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: roads with many names

brad
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
So is F street, or 1st street a name or a ref?

On 8/18/19 10:27 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> It looks like "CR 2" is a "ref" rather than a name, and so is FS
> 729.2B. A ref=, short for "reference number" (or more properly
> "reference alphanumeric string") is a set of letters and numbers that
> identifies a feature.
>
> While it's best to have the common name in the tag name=, like
> name=Corkscrew Gulch Road, it's okay to have more than one ref in the
> tag ref, separated by semicolons. Many database users can handle this.
> Eg:
>
> name=Corkscrew Gulch Road
> ref=CR 2;FS 729.2B
>
> If there are other, less common actual names, consider using
> alt_name=* or loc_name=* (local, informal names), but in this case it
> looks like there is just one name, but multiple reference numbers.
>
> Joseph
>
> On 8/19/19, Rob Savoye <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 8/18/19 9:41 AM, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>>> Assuming that "CR 2" is a name and not a ref, one possibility that
>>> springs to mind, and which will no doubt be highly controversial is
>>    Yes, it's county designated name. It's gets messier than that, as
>> sometimes "CR 2" might include multiple other road segments, all with
>> different names common and USFS names. We prefer the common name or the
>> USFS name, but I have no control over what Dispatch gives us.
>>
>>> name=CR 2 / Corkscrew Gulch Road / FS 729.2B alt_name=CR 2; Corkscrew
>>> Gulch Road; FS 729.2B
>>> If you have several name or several ref, you can use the “;”
>>> separator
>>    Ah, I've used that elsewhere, didn't think about it for road names.
>> The problem though is since the name gets displayed, too many long road
>> names obscures the map. I've had similar problems with house addresses
>> in the more densely populated areas. When I produce a KML file from OSM
>> data, I put all the names in the description popup. That works in GPS
>> map apps, but not in OsmAnd. Plus I wonder if that would break routing...
>>
>> - rob -
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: roads with many names

Joseph Eisenberg
F Street and 1st Street (usually written out as First Street, though
this depends on the local standards) are a common name, which goes in
the name field.

1st Street might also be part of County Road (CR) #312, which would be
ref=CR 312 or =CR312 or similar. The idea is that most people locally
would refer to their address as on "F Street" or "First Street" in
conversation, but the ref is still useful for navigation if it's
placed on signs in addition to the local name.

Some roads only have a name like (California) State Highway 99, which
is used by the locals as their house or business street address, so in
that case you can use both name=Highway 99 (or whatever the most
common signs and addresses say) in addition to ref=CA 99 or similar.

On 8/19/19, brad <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So is F street, or 1st street a name or a ref?
>
> On 8/18/19 10:27 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> It looks like "CR 2" is a "ref" rather than a name, and so is FS
>> 729.2B. A ref=, short for "reference number" (or more properly
>> "reference alphanumeric string") is a set of letters and numbers that
>> identifies a feature.
>>
>> While it's best to have the common name in the tag name=, like
>> name=Corkscrew Gulch Road, it's okay to have more than one ref in the
>> tag ref, separated by semicolons. Many database users can handle this.
>> Eg:
>>
>> name=Corkscrew Gulch Road
>> ref=CR 2;FS 729.2B
>>
>> If there are other, less common actual names, consider using
>> alt_name=* or loc_name=* (local, informal names), but in this case it
>> looks like there is just one name, but multiple reference numbers.
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>> On 8/19/19, Rob Savoye <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On 8/18/19 9:41 AM, Paul Allen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Assuming that "CR 2" is a name and not a ref, one possibility that
>>>> springs to mind, and which will no doubt be highly controversial is
>>>    Yes, it's county designated name. It's gets messier than that, as
>>> sometimes "CR 2" might include multiple other road segments, all with
>>> different names common and USFS names. We prefer the common name or the
>>> USFS name, but I have no control over what Dispatch gives us.
>>>
>>>> name=CR 2 / Corkscrew Gulch Road / FS 729.2B alt_name=CR 2; Corkscrew
>>>> Gulch Road; FS 729.2B
>>>> If you have several name or several ref, you can use the “;”
>>>> separator
>>>    Ah, I've used that elsewhere, didn't think about it for road names.
>>> The problem though is since the name gets displayed, too many long road
>>> names obscures the map. I've had similar problems with house addresses
>>> in the more densely populated areas. When I produce a KML file from OSM
>>> data, I put all the names in the description popup. That works in GPS
>>> map apps, but not in OsmAnd. Plus I wonder if that would break routing...
>>>
>>> - rob -
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: roads with many names

Rob Savoye
In reply to this post by Johnparis
On 8/18/19 9:09 PM, Johnparis wrote:
> Don't know how you deduced "no space?" from Martin's comment. A space
> is an alphanumeric character. In any case, as I mentioned, there is

  I just read too much into example of 'CR2'... I'm just trying to get
it right, so routing works better. I prefer the space as it's easier to
read...

> The problem with space-vs-no space arises particularly with refs,
> which are searchable. If you include the space for refs of national
> routes in Morocco, someone will remove it; if you omit it in Algeria,
> someone will add it. There are some advantages to consistency within
> a given area,

  Many of the existing USFS roads in OSM in this area use 'alt_name',
which doesn't seem to get used for routing, while the ref* ones do. I'm
a huge fan of consistency, since it makes it easier to parse data and
render when I'm making maps.

> Tag *names*, by contrast, use an underscore instead of a space.
> Kevin Kenny's comment above indicates what appears to be the
> consensus on the tag name(s) in the USA. So in theory you might have
> ref:US:NFSR:Raggeds_Wilderness:NFH=FS 826. That seems to me to be a
> bit much to swallow ...

  Yeah, maybe too verbose. :-) I can tell which forest it's in by
checking the boundary. I haven't seen that long tag actually used, at
least not here in Colorado. I think 'ref:usfs' works fine.

> ... except that, again, you might want to use a space instead of a
> hyphen in the "ref" tag in this case, and normally you'd use
> semicolons (not commas) as a separator in the "source" tag.

  I'm noticing many of the existing roads in OSM in the area I'm working
on do use the hyphen. As I add and validate the metadata, I am changing
that to a space. The boring janitor work is worth is in the long run.

        - rob -

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: roads with many names

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
F Street and 1st Street (usually written out as First Street, though
this depends on the local standards) are a common name, which goes in
the name field.

It can also be regionally dependent.  Oklahoma got a lot of "East 820 Road" type names, but in reality it should be ref=CR E820 instead.   TIGER is the most notorious source for this bogosity, and the counties themselves aren't super consistent themselves, so you'll see some with the five point blue county signs, some that use standard street blades and list the road numbers, and some that literally paint the route numbers on the pavement at each intersection, regional knowledge is required to get the context right, especially since you'll get some that TIGER imported with like:

name=East 820 Road
name_1=Cemetery Road
name_2=River Road.

Rearrange the multiple values randomly.  It's pretty obvious to tell which is going to be the county road number.  Which name it is gets a little tricker; sometimes it was originally one then it changed to another, sometimes it's none of those besides the county road number, sometimes it's the county road number and another, fourth value for the name from a more recent renaming.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: roads with many names

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Rob Savoye
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 11:30 PM Rob Savoye <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Tag *names*, by contrast, use an underscore instead of a space.
> > Kevin Kenny's comment above indicates what appears to be the
> > consensus on the tag name(s) in the USA. So in theory you might have
> > ref:US:NFSR:Raggeds_Wilderness:NFH=FS 826. That seems to me to be a
> > bit much to swallow ...
>
>   Yeah, maybe too verbose. :-) I can tell which forest it's in by
> checking the boundary. I haven't seen that long tag actually used, at
> least not here in Colorado. I think 'ref:usfs' works fine.

No, I was talking about the network name in a route=road relation.

route=road relations provide a way to group all the individual
segments of a numbered route into a coherent whole, and allow for
better handling of things like the choice of highway shield and the
handling of concurrencies (where two numbered routes run along the
same roadway).

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3109478 is an example that I
was just editing this evening.  It has a lot of individual roadways,
and the presence of the relation allows them to be worked on as a
group, listed end to end, have mileage tables produced, and so on.

On the route relation the reference is just '159'.  The 'network' is 'US:NY'.

The 'ref' appears on the individual ways as 'NY 159'.

A county road needs to identify the county as well as the state in its
'network', so with https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3122269
you'll see that the 'ref' is still just '88' but the 'network' is
'US:NY:Schenectady'.  Since different counties use different shields,
'CR' wouldn't be enough to determine what shield to use in rendering.
The 'ref' on the way is still 'CR 88'.

For USFS roads, the numbers can be reused between forests, or so I
understand, so the complex string for the 'network' is used to make
sure that there's something unique about the route.  'FS 12345' wouid
be a perfectly good 'ref' on the way,  but doesn't give you the other
advantages of route relations.

For your example, the 'ref' on the way would be 'CR2;FS 729.2B'. The
way would be a member of two route relations, one for the county road
and one for the Forest Service route.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: roads with many names

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Johnparis
I would have expected tracktype=grade2 for a gravel road. Is it common to use grade1 in that area for very well built, quality gravel roads?

Joseph

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:11 PM Johnparis <[hidden email]> wrote:
Don't know how you deduced "no space?" from Martin's comment. A space is an alphanumeric character. In any case, as I mentioned, there is normally a local consensus on space-versus-no space, and as others have mentioned, it's up to you.

The problem with space-vs-no space arises particularly with refs, which are searchable. If you include the space for refs of national routes in Morocco, someone will remove it; if you omit it in Algeria, someone will add it. There are some advantages to consistency within a given area, and the tagging consensus will be documented (hopefully) on the wiki or the local mailing list (as is the case for the national routes I cited). "Paint the label" is fine in general but there can be other considerations (signs, as you know, aren't always correct).

Tag *names*, by contrast, use an underscore instead of a space. Kevin Kenny's comment above indicates what appears to be the consensus on the tag name(s) in the USA. So in theory you might have ref:US:NFSR:Raggeds_Wilderness:NFH=FS 826. That seems to me to be a bit much to swallow ...

You can see the tagging on the Court Street example he cites here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45759030

Here's a Colorado national forest highway with a nearby CR: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17062214#map=14/38.8684/-107.1015

The tags look reasonable to me:

highway=unclassified
name=Lake Irwin Road 826
ref=FS-826
source=Gunnison County GIS data, USFS, Bing
surface=gravel
tracktype=grade1

... except that, again, you might want to use a space instead of a hyphen in the "ref" tag in this case, and normally you'd use semicolons (not commas) as a separator in the "source" tag.






On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:28 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 19/08/19 05:16, Paul Allen wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 19:55, Rob Savoye <[hidden email]> wrote:
  So no space ? USFS roads use "FS " with a space, at least that seems
to be common. So should those be "FS739.1A' ?

My opinion is "paint the label."  Others disagree.  Make up your own mind which
is better.

+1.

The mapper is in charge of what goes into OSM. They should map what they see, not conform to some 'rule' of 'no spaces' etc etc. Map the truth.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: roads with many names

Andrew Davidson-3
In reply to this post by Julien djakk
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 1:45 AM Julien djakk <[hidden email]> wrote:

If you have several name or several ref, you can use the “;” separator 


Name tags with ";" in them get flagged as a problem to fix by validators.

If there are more than one alternative names for something I use alt_name=* alt_name:1=* etc.  Nominatim will consume names in the alt_name:* space so they'll be searchable.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: roads with many names

Rob Savoye
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
On 8/18/19 10:05 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

> route=road relations provide a way to group all the individual
> segments of a numbered route into a coherent whole, and allow for
> better handling of things like the choice of highway shield and the
> handling of concurrencies (where two numbered routes run along the
> same roadway).

  Interesting, this answers something I've wondered about. Sometimes I
see ways in data that you can tell the GPS signal dropped, those I just
connect. I'm mapping locally, so have a sense of when that's
appropriate, and can drive there to validate. When the metadata changes
sometimes in the segments, those have to be separate to preserve that.
For us that's often where you park the fire truck and get the UTV
going... Anyway, as a long term solution, route=road seems the way to go
after I get all the data cleaned up.

> For your example, the 'ref' on the way would be 'CR2;FS 729.2B'. The
> way would be a member of two route relations, one for the county road
> and one for the Forest Service route.

 If I ever got around to adding all these relations, it might improve
search. A big task unfortunately. There are other issues with how search
works in OsmAnd, that's a different email list. :-)

        - rob -

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12